List stores by mall operator.
Diacritic-insensitive substring match on the operator name
('nepi' matches 'NEPI Rockcastle', 'simon' matches 'Simon Property Group').
Args:
operator: Operator name or fragment (e.g. 'NEPI', 'Simon', 'Westfield').
max_results: Maximum number of stores to return (1-100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operator | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses a non-obvious behavior: diacritic-insensitive substring matching with concrete examples ('nepi' matches 'NEPI Rockcastle'). It also documents the max_results boundary (1-100), adding value beyond the schema. With no annotations supplied, this meaningfully covers the key behavioral nuance, though side effects are not discussed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is compact and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by the key matching behavior, then the arguments. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose, matching rules, and parameter constraints. It omits response shape and pagination details, and there is no output schema to supplement those details, but the core invocation requirements are fully addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: operator may be a name or fragment with examples, and max_results is defined as the maximum number of stores with a numeric range. This is complete parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'List stores by mall operator,' a specific verb and resource with a clear scope. The 'by mall operator' phrase differentiates it from siblings like stores_by_category and stores_by_city, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There are no explicit statements about when to use this tool versus siblings such as search_stores or mall_stores. The matching examples imply common use cases, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving selection mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct retrieval mode: mall discovery, stores within a mall, free-text search, and structured filters by category, city, or operator. search_stores overlaps conceptually with the structured filters, but the descriptions make the boundary reasonably clear.
list_malls and search_stores use a verb_noun pattern, mall_stores is noun_noun, and the three filter tools use stores_by_<field>. The conventions are readable and predictable within subgroups, but not uniform across the whole set.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only directory: one mall-level tool, one mall-scoped store tool, one free-text search, and three structured filters. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The set covers mall discovery and multiple store retrieval paths, including free-text and structured filters. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to enumerate all stores globally without a query or list valid categories/cities/operators, but agents can work around them using the provided tools.